rhyee wrote:
Bart wrote:
Bob actually made a comment about this on PayDay a couple of
days ago, saying, in effect, what does iON / you mean to you?
So, what does it mean to you? Realizing that iON is you and you
are iON, what is your experience of the absence of the sound of /
interaction with iON / J.W.?
BOB: Try this on for size:
iON once asked me at the beginning: "How can you hear Non-Physical"?
Good question.
I now say that we haven't talked ever (since iON showed up) with our Non-Physical.
We are talking and listening to iON engage and create with the Physical (this may or may not include "language" or "mortar"). Since March 18/09, iON has been in the Physical or is Physical, and not limited to the Non-Physical
per se.
However, iON has tended to refer to themselves as "Non-Physical" from the beginning. But now we have to consider that THAT was the necessary linguistic approach addressed to the 99%ers for the past 2.5 years.
But as we "stand" here today, iON in the Physical is only addressing the 1%ers.
If this is the fact, then we are witnessing something that has great implications for the history and legacy of the Astral Body (the spoken word [shamanistic, oral] heritage and sacred/metaphysical manuscripts).
And if you accept this fact, then I would suggest you write with these distinctions in mind from now on.
Bob Neveritt
Well, first, iON shouldn't be using a degree of separation. I won't answer...*folding arms*
hehe OK, there are a lot of interesting threads one could pursue here.
I'm with you. We haven't talked with our non-physical, only the physical
manifestation of that "current", so to speak.
We'll see if this relates. I looked up the definition for energy recently, and
liked the definition below,
Quote:
3 : a fundamental entity of nature that is transferred between parts of a system
in the production of physical change within the system and usually regarded as the capacity
for doing work
SOURCE -
http://goo.gl/vqe8FTaking iON's toaster analogy (as much as he (and I) dismisses analogies),
there is a capacity that we might refer to as non-physical, but is meaningless
(save for mortar terms of convenience) in terms of our interacting with it.
For convenience, I would like to refer to that which we haven't yet and will
not communicate as "capacity" ("freakency"?)?
That capacity takes form once a resonance or accord, so to speak, is achieved
between a conduit for that capacity and the device interacting with that conduit.
That toaster (us) is not communicating with the capacity, it is interacting with /
using the product of the transference that occurs once that resonance is achieved.
I was going to say that an analogy could be striking two stones together to make
fire, or wearing socks and dragging one's feet across the carpet to create a static
discharge, but there is an aspect of frequency / resonance at play here that make
those analogies fall short.
It's almost like using a tuning fork in reverse. The tuning fork must achieve a certain
frequency / resonance before it makes contact with the so-called physical force /
element.
In any event, what is occurring when we communicate with iON through and
around J.W., is clearly physical. It can't be anything but.
You said,
Quote:
...
However, iON has tended to refer to themselves as "Non-Physical" from the beginning.
But now we have to consider that THAT was the necessary linguistic approach addressed
to the 99%ers for the past 2.5 years.
...
One must take iON's designations for himself simply as convenient references,
which cannot reach the thing in itself; nor can any effort on our part create
circumstances where we can communicate with something that is not physical,
because physicality is the only medium with which we can work / communicate.
iON wants to keep it in the dirty here and now, and I realize he means that it
all takes place here, on the ground, in this life, now. Heaven on Earth, and all that.
We can't experience anything but the dirty here and now. Our notion of there
being an "other" is a mind game.
This is why iON keeps everything literal and "physical", because that's all there really
is.
I'm not suggesting that there isn't Astral travel, but it stems / originates from our
physical / chemical body situation, here.
Also,
Quote:
...
But as we "stand" here today, iON in the Physical is only addressing the 1%ers.
...
I still like Revelation 3:20, " Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my
voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
We're talking about frequency / resonance. Those who are here and get it, are resonating
with this capacity and are activated by and with it.
Outside of these powered up toasters, you have appliances that haven't plugged in and
activated, so the capacity isn't utilized.
The message falls on deaf ears, so the communication can't / doesn't exist.
iON, therefore, can only address the 1%ers, because that communication / transference
can't reach the so-called 90 and 9.
An aside, I'm not sure if this is done deliberately by iON, or if it is simply a mechanic of
this process, but situations where folks aren't either able to connect to an iON conference
call, aren't able to post In-Quick messages, or aren't able to send emails to Bob and
have him receive them, etc., (i.e., are foiled in attempts to reach iON) is an example of
a resonance, or lining up that hasn't occurred.
Whether deliberate, or just a byproduct / mechanic of this process, the communication
is literally not possible anyway.
I know, personally, of folks who have had these experiences, but it's no use trying to
address it...
This can also be referred to as the wheat being separated from the chaff.
Finally,
Quote:
...
But as we "stand" here today, iON in the Physical is only addressing the 1%ers.
If this is the fact, then we are witnessing something that has great implications for the history and legacy of the Astral Body (the spoken word [shamanistic, oral] heritage and sacred/metaphysical manuscripts).
And if you accept this fact, then I would suggest you write with these distinctions in mind from now on.
Bob Neveritt
The "Astral Body" has many meanings to many different people, but I'll take it
as you've written here (i.e., the relevant history of metaphysics, back to the
oral traditions, and minus the New Age crap).
I would like to know what, if any, distinction you make between iON, the Astral
and the Mystery Landscape.
It seems you're taking iON as an element of the Astral, and therefore placing
the Astral as the only relevant counterpart to the physical (i.e., separating and
keeping the Mystery Landscape as a separate element / entity).
Is this so?
Also, I'm not clear on what you mean by "these distinctions". Can you clarify?
If I were to guess, I'd say you meant the distinction between referring to iON
as "non-physical" versus a physical element / environment.
If the latter is the case, sounds good to me.
This latter experience puts iON in a concrete environment and in concrete terms.
It excludes / precludes any notion of un / non-physicality, and thus removes
the abstract, woo woo elements that may encroach on one's consideration of
what iON is.
This separation (of physical and non-physical) was superficial to start, and only
presented as a term of convenience, so to rid our exchanges of it isn't much of
an issue...It will definitely remove any barrier that kept iON "out there" and not
with us in the dirty here and now.
Not sure if I responded to your statements, but there's a start.
Now that we've established everything as physical, I wonder when we'll be rid of
that notion and really up the ante...
On a side, speaking of the oral tradition (*rim shot*), I just found an article that
states that when the vowels of the ancient languages of Hebrew and Sanskrit
are played through a device that transfers frequency to a tray with sand on it,
that the sand actually takes the form of the written counterpart to those vowels,
Quote:
...
In his research with the tonoscope, Jenny noticed that when the vowels of the
ancient languages of Hebrew and Sanskrit were pronounced, the sand took the
shape of the written symbols for these vowels, while our modern languages, on the
other hand, did not generate the same result! How is this possible?
Did the ancient Hebrews and Indians know this? Is there something to the concept
of "sacred language," which both of these are sometimes called? What qualities do
these "sacred languages," among which Tibetan, Egyptian and Chinese are often
numbered, possess?
Do they have the power to influence and transform physical reality, to create things
through their inherent power, or, to take a concrete example, through the recitation
or singing of sacred texts, to heal a person who has gone "out of tune"?
...
SOURCE -
http://goo.gl/6FU5r (about halfway down the page)
Tune up!
Another side note, I would just like to recognize that Bob's contributions here, on
the calls and elsewhere, are the tip of the iceberg, a very, very large iceberg.
I know this and appreciate that you're playing, phatic as it must needs be...
See you soon...
Bart
Login
FAQ
Search
